Guardian Legal Network + Press freedom | The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/law/series/guardian-legal-network+media/press-freedom
Indexen-gbGuardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. 2016Fri, 09 Dec 2016 14:46:28 GMT2016-12-09T14:46:28Zen-gbGuardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. 2016The Guardianhttps://assets.guim.co.uk/images/guardian-logo-rss.c45beb1bafa34b347ac333af2e6fe23f.pnghttps://www.theguardian.com
Human rights and the Official Secrets Act | Adam Wagnerhttps://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/sep/19/official-secrets-act-human-rights-act
Can the seminal Shayler case help the Guardian as the Met tries to force one of its journalists to reveal her sources?<p>When considering the Metropolitan Police Authority's <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/18/pressure-attorney-general-press-freedom">attempt</a> to force a Guardian journalist to disclose her source, it is worth revisiting the seminal case of <a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2002/11.html">Shayler, R</a> [2002] UKHL 11. The case, which arose shortly after the Human Rights Act came into force, shows how heavily stacked the law is against those accused of causing to leak state secrets, but may reveal some limited hope for journalists too.</p><p>Although it now <a href="http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/opinion-mets-application-against-the-guardian-time-to-define-the-public-interest-brian-cathcart/">appears</a> that the case is being brought under <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/9">section 9</a> and <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/schedule/1">Schedule 1</a> of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, it is still worth examining the powers which the police have under both PACE and the Official Secrets Act. Simply, there is no public interest defence to the charges under sections 1 and 4 and none will be implied by the courts as a result of human rights law. However, section 5 was not considered and may still bear fruit.</p><p>government of the people by the people for the people. But there can be no government by the people if they are ignorant of the issues to be resolved, the arguments for and against different solutions and the facts underlying those arguments… there can be no assurance that government is carried out for the people unless the facts are made known, the issues publicly ventilated.</p><p> Those concerned may very strongly wish that the facts relating to such matters are not made public… Experience however shows, in this country and elsewhere, that publicity is a powerful disinfectant. Where abuses are exposed, they can be remedied… The role of the press in exposing abuses and miscarriages of justice has been a potent and honourable one. But the press cannot expose that of which it is denied knowledge.</p><p> The acid test is whether, in all the circumstances, the interference with the individual's convention right prescribed by national law is greater than is required to meet the legitimate object which the state seeks to achieve. The OSA 1989, as it applies to the appellant, must be considered in that context.</p><p>96. Section 5 is not easy to interpret and we do not seek to say anything about its interpretation. However, Mr Tugendhat was concerned in case a journalist could instead of being prosecuted under section 5 be charged with inciting an offence under section 1. He says allegations as to this have been made in this case. These may have arisen because the Daily Mail paid Mr Shayler £37,000 for his revelations which they published. As Professor Birkinshaw makes clear in his admirable work, Freedom of Information, this area is a minefield and we feel unable to say more in relation to the submissions that we have heard than:<br> (1) It would have to be an extreme case on the facts for a prosecution for incitement to be justified having regard to the structure of the OSA which attaches such importance to the status of the individual charged.<br> (2) Judicial review could have a significant role to play in this area and if for example, before disclosure the matter was already fully in the public domain it is difficult to identify what would be the rational justification for not granting authorisation for disclosure or authorising a prosecution.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/sep/19/official-secrets-act-human-rights-act">Continue reading...</a>Official Secrets ActHuman Rights ActHuman rightsLawPress freedomPhone hackingMediaDavid ShaylerThomas BinghamPress intrusionMon, 19 Sep 2011 13:56:56 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/sep/19/official-secrets-act-human-rights-actPhotograph: Sean Smith/GuardianDavid Shayler and girlfriend Annie Machon outside the high court. Photograph: Sean Smith for the GuardianPhotograph: Sean Smith/GuardianDavid Shayler and girlfriend Annie Machon outside the high court. Photograph: Sean Smith for the GuardianAdam Wagner for the UK Human Rights Blog, part of the Guardian Legal Network2011-09-19T13:56:56ZDo we have a fundamental right to film the police in public? | Hugh Tomlinsonhttps://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/aug/31/do-we-have-right-to-film-police
English case law is unclear, but rulings in the US and Strasbourg suggest we do have a right to photograph public officials<p>As a number of recent cases have made clear, filming policing activity in public places is a vital method of holding police to account. But there have been continuing tensions between the police and photographers over the practice. In January 2010 there was a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8476318.stm" title="">protest</a> in Trafalgar Square by photographers against the use of terrorism laws to stop and search photographers. A campaign called "<a href="http://photographernotaterrorist.org/" title="">I'm a photographer, not a terrorist</a>" was launched to protect the rights of those taking photographs in public places.</p><p>However, although guidance issued by, for example, the Metropolitan Police has <a href="http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm" title="">made it clear</a> that</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/aug/31/do-we-have-right-to-film-police">Continue reading...</a>PolicePress freedomUS constitution and civil libertiesUK newsHuman rightsLawNewspapers & magazinesMediaEuropean court of human rightsMedia lawWed, 31 Aug 2011 13:04:08 GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/aug/31/do-we-have-right-to-film-policePhotograph: Rex FeaturesA police officer with video camera monitors hunt protesters. Photographer: Chris Balcombe/Rex FeaturesPhotograph: Rex FeaturesA police officer with video camera monitors hunt protesters. Photographer: Chris Balcombe/Rex FeaturesHugh Tomlinson QC for the Inforrm blog, part of the Guardian Legal Network2011-08-31T13:04:08Z